Al-Qaeda as Strong as Ever

from JoeUser Forums



U.S. Intelligence has concluded that after 6 years of bombings and fighting in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda has reconstituted and is as strong and capable as before 9/11. While we tie the majority of our ground forces up in a Civil War in Iraq, the terrorist group RESPONSIBLE for 9/11 and all the other attacks against our country have been allowed to become a big a danger as it was before 9/11. Bush tells us how his Iraq War will prevent the enemy from bringing the attack to us while the group responsible has not been eliminated because we have committed the vast majority of our efforts in a country that has NOTHING to do with attacking the United States. HOW is that effectively fighting the War on Terrorism?

Bush says he wants to wait for the September report on the Surge in Iraq when it is clear the political changes that he and everyone else admits are essential have not taken place. In addition the Iraqi Legislature will be on recess for the month of August which means there is NO possibility that the needed political reforms can be enacted. What then is the reason to wait for September?

Bush wants us to believe we are making progress in reducing the danger from future attack. The Homeland Security Secretary now believes there will be another devastating attack on the U.S. this summer. Our Intelligence agencies tell us the source of past attacks is as strong as ever. Sounds like Bush does not know what he is talking about!

The time has come to END the Iraq operation, increase the forces in Afghanistan to insure that al-Qaeda is eradicated from Afghanistan. The only operations I believe we should continue in Iraq would be against groups like al-Qaeda who have set up operations in Iraq and training support for the Iraqi Army. We need to more effectively use our military forces in the struggle against radical Islam.
politics
6,630 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yeah, that's why Al Qeada leaders freely walk around in the open.

When I see Bin Laden travelling around like Prs. Bush does, I'll believe this.  Til then I'll just excuse it as the kind of slop you would go for.

 

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The information in my Blog was provided by our intelligence agencies. I guess they do not know what they are talking about. To be at a point where our intelligence concludes that after 6 years in Afghanistan al-Qaeda is as strong as 6 years ago shows the TOITAL failure of the Bush policies. Rather then deal with those that were responsible for 9/11, the first twin tower attacks, the Cole etc. Bush sent most of our troops into Iraq that had NOTHING to do with ANY of the attacks on the U.S. That more clearly then anything shows the Commander-in-Chief does not know what he is doing. We are the reason al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are operating today in Iraq. They were NOT there when Saddam was in power.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
But ColGene, you have spent the last few years talking about how the intelligence agencies were wrong about Iraq... now you are telling us that what they say about Iraq is gospel? LOL
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2007
“But ColGene, you have spent the last few years talking about how the intelligence agencies were wrong about Iraq...”

That is NOT what I said. What I said is that Bush used those elements of the intelligence that suited him and kept anything that did not support his invasion of Iraq classified. Events on the ground in Afghanistan clearly show we have NOT contained al-Qaeda in that country. Thus the Intelligence and the reality are in agreement and clearly show the Bush policy is not solving the problem of terrorism.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is NOT what I said.


Actually you did. On several occasions you pointed to the Gov't agencies as mishandling inteligence and this was before rumors started about Bush changing thes e intelligence documents to suit him. Besides we all know al-qaeda is not dead. We all know they are just hiding. They may be strong but they are on the run, hiding and not being able to formulate decent plans. But that will changes, as soon as we leave Iraq because of cries from people like you, Al-qaeda will take over and then we will really be fucked. Especially since they will see us as cowards, because of people like oyu.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
ColGene, you, Pelosi and Reid are the best friends Al Qaeda have!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
“But that will changes, as soon as we leave Iraq because of cries from people like you, Al-Qaeda will take over and then we will really be fucked.”

They would not be in Iraq if Bush had not invaded Iraq and if he had put the troops in Afghanistan in 2002 they would not be there either.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
“But that will changes, as soon as we leave Iraq because of cries from people like you, Al-Qaeda will take over and then we will really be fucked.”

They would not be in Iraq if Bush had not invaded Iraq and if he had put the troops in Afghanistan in 2002 they would not be there either.


Reply By: ParaTed2k Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2007
ColGene, you, Pelosi and Reid are the best friends Al Qaeda have! No their best friend is GWB. Bush has handed al Qaeda the best recruiting tool they ever had- It is called the Iraq war!.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
al-Qaida Has Regained Strength, US Warns
By MATTHEW LEE and KATHERINE SHRADER (Associated Press Writers)
From Associated Press
July 12, 2007 2:44 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaida has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001.

A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the document - titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West" - called it a stark appraisal. The analysis will be part of a broader meeting at the White House on Thursday about an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

The official and others spoke to The Associated Press on condition they not be identified because the report remains classified.

The findings suggests that the network that launched the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil has been able to regroup despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at dismantling it.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

here is how it works for colgene, when the Intelligence happens to agree with genes ideology he touts how wonderful the intelligence is, when the intelligence does not agree with genes ideology gene cries how bad the intelligence is.

short, simple and right on the money.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
They would not be in Iraq if Bush had not invaded Iraq and if he had put the troops in Afghanistan in 2002 they would not be there either.


so again you state that a mass murderer should have been left in power.

he was trying to kill all of the Kurds ie genocide. your upset that we stopped that.

yet the genocide that is going on in dufar you are upset that we haven't invaded.

and the Sudanese army is most defiantly not a threat to the USA
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gene, you ignorant slut (to paraphrase a famous "reporter").

I'd be interested in what the ignorant slut thinks would have happened to Al Qaeda and what its relative strength would be in 2007 had the overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam not occurred. It may come as a shock, but I suspect I know the answer; since there would be no empirical way to "prove" him wrong, he can say anything he wants.  
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
*Yawn* same old broken record.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

They would not be in Iraq if Bush had not invaded Iraq and if he had put the troops in Afghanistan in 2002 they would not be there either.


I'm sorry and how exactly can you prove that Col. Do you have concrete evidence that Al-qaeda would never have been in Iraq? Can you say with out a doubt that there was absolutely no way that Al-qaeda would have been in Iraq had we never gone there? Of course you can't. You are no mind reader, you do not work for any intelligence agency and there is no way (based on the poor intelligence you demonstrate here) that you are well educated and up to date on terrorist activities all across the world, cause unless you are there within Al-qaeda and know everything they say or do, you know nothing more than what the media tells you and you have the tendency of believe everything the media says usually when it talks bad about this administration.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm sorry and how exactly can you prove that Col. Do you have concrete evidence that Al-qaeda would never have been in Iraq? Can you say with out a doubt that there was absolutely no way that Al-qaeda would have been in Iraq had we never gone there? Of course you can't. You are no mind reader, you do not work for any intelligence agency and there is no way (based on the poor intelligence you demonstrate here) that you are well educated and up to date on terrorist activities all across the world, cause unless you are there within Al-qaeda and know everything they say or do, you know nothing more than what the media tells you and you have the tendency of believe everything the media says usually when it talks bad about this administration.


this is my feelings too
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Moderateman Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2007
“Here is how it works for colgene, when the Intelligence happens to agree with genes ideology he touts how wonderful the intelligence is, when the intelligence does not agree with genes ideology gene cries how bad the intelligence is.”

What I have said is that Bush is the one who Cherry Picks the Intel. Many Former CIA Officials have documented where Bush and Cheney have ignored Intel that did not support their policies and use only that which helped their position. Yesterday Bush in his news conference contradicted the Intel about the current assessment of al Qaeda. The President does not collect the Intel. He receives the Intel produced by thousands of people who work full time to provide him the information and he IGNORES it. All that proves is that Bush does CHERRY PICK only that Intel he likes.

His own Secretary of Homeland Security is telling us he feels al Qaeda will attack the U.S. THIS SUMMER. How after 6 years of trying to eliminate al Qaeda we could have our top officials provide such an assessment shows just how ineffective the policy has been to reduce the danger of future attacks!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Daiwa Posted: Thursday, July 12, 2007
Gene, you ignorant slut (to paraphrase a famous "reporter").

“I'd be interested in what the ignorant slut thinks would have happened to Al Qaeda and what its relative strength would be in 2007 had the overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam not occurred.”

Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda. They were NOT operating in Iraq they were operation out of Afghanistan. Bush started to deal with al Qaeda where they were and then BEFORE the job was completed invaded Iraq which had NOTHING to do with al Qaeda or any of the attacks on the U.S. Now al Qaeda has reconstituted its operation in Afghanistan and begun operating in Iraq even though we have 160,000 troops in Iraq. Great Job Mr. Bush!!!!!!!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda. They were NOT operating in Iraq they were operation out of Afghanistan. Bush started to deal with al Qaeda where they were and then BEFORE the job was completed invaded Iraq which had NOTHING to do with al Qaeda or any of the attacks on the U.S. Now al Qaeda has reconstituted its operation in Afghanistan and begun operating in Iraq even though we have 160,000 troops in Iraq. Great Job Mr. Bush!!!!!!!


so you are defently advocating the invasion of pakistan then
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
“So you are defiantly advocating the invasion of Pakistan then”

We need to try and get them to go after Al-Qaeda operating in Pakistan. If we must conduct limited operations in Pakistan to eliminate al Qaeda we should consider such action. We should not have invaded Iraq and diverted our forces to Iraq where the attacks on the U.S. WERE NOT planned or controlled.

We now have the Predator Drone with the Hell Fire Missile that can be used to both observe specific targets and take action without committing manned forces on the ground or in the air. I would definitely use the Predator in Pakistan.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
We need to try and get them to go after Al-Qaeda operating in Pakistan. If we must conduct limited operations in Pakistan to eliminate al Qaeda we should consider such action. We should not have invaded Iraq and diverted our forces to Iraq where the attacks on the U.S. WERE NOT planned or controlled.

We now have the Predator Drone with the Hell Fire Missile that can be used to both observe specific targets and take action without committing manned forces on the ground or in the air. I would definitely use the Predator in Pakistan.




this is called an invasion
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
"This is called an invasion”

Use of the Predator would not be an invasion. You call it what you like. If the Government of Pakistan will not stop al Qaeda, I would use that system. That is very different from what we did in Iraq.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
"This is called an invasion”

Use of the Predator would not be an invasion. You call it what you like. If the Government of Pakistan will not stop al Qaeda, I would use that system. That is very different from what we did in Iraq.


this is still an invasion of an ally


you are willing to turn an ally into an enemy to stop al qaeda.


but you are also willing to let a mass murderer remain in power.

and your upset that bush would alienate allies in order to take that mass murderer out.

like i said in another thread you are a hypocrite